Pelosi & Roe VS WadeBy Rob Holston
June 02, 2022
Justice Blackmun delivered the majority opinion of the Court, wherein it states in part... “If abortion was prosecuted in some places, it seems to have been based on a concept of a violation of the father's right to his offspring.”, thus addressing the issue of father’s rights yet not protecting those rights in their decision. Oh wow! Fathers may have rights? Justice Blackmun quotes the Hippocratic Oath which states ‘I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner I will not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion.’ Does the Hippocratic Oath protect the lives of the pre-born? Justice Blackmun discusses the physiological and economical impacts that another child may have on the woman and states, “All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.” Blackmun fails to recognize that nearly 100% of abortions occurs with NO ‘responsible physician’ involved in the abortion industrial complex, NO consultation with a psychologist or psychiatrist, ‘just get er done’ and end the innocent human’s life. The stated position assumes that the physician is the woman’s doctor and that a patient/doctor relationship exists but this is far from reality in that the abortionist’s only relationship with the ‘woman with child’ is viewing the pre-dialated cervix and proceeding to terminate the innocent human life within. Blackmun further writes....... “The appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute, as based upon her ‘right to privacy’ and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we (The Supreme Court Justices) do NOT agree.” “The right of privacy....is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is NOT absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We (The Supreme Court) agree with this approach.” Justice Blackmun writes “The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a 'person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well-known facts (from 1970) of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the (14th) Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.51 On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument52 that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Such was the Court’s dilemma 50+ years ago before science establishes the facts of personhood. Justice Blackmun writes “....it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly......We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.” Good news, 50+ years later, the advancement of science now tells us that at the moment of conception the new, innocent, human life created is NOT a part of the woman’s body. It it were it would have the woman’s DNA. This new innocent human life has 1/2 of the woman’s DNA. That is science. So to the women shouting “My life, my body, my choice.” please know; It is NOT your body that you are killing by abortion it is an innocent human life. Those are the facts. I do not condemn women who have had abortions. I do have compassion for any woman faced with the ramifications of an unplanned pregnancy. May we please have a dialogue based on the facts and not treat a pregnancy like a disease? Please recognize the science available now that did not exist in the 70’s and apply that science to the issue of “personhood” that the Supreme Court wrestled with 50 years ago. Perhaps the new industry in the U.S. will be adoption centers. May I suggest to those interested in learning about the inside workings of abortion “clinics” please read UnPlanned by Abby Johnson. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113 Rob Holston
About: Editor's Note:
Received May 27, 2022 - Published June ,2022 Related Viewpoint:
E-mail your letters
& opinions to editor@sitnews.us Published letters become the property of SitNews.
|
|||
